tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 17, 2019 2:00am-3:01am PDT
whether it's a high flow or compromise and understand we may not have that decision in hand before we need the approval but need to be clear with the planning department on what the implications are to meet supply. we can't under current standing order from the state. again, i believe we can but we'd have to have severe rationing. >> we feel we can supply water with severe rationing. >> i have a question for mr. richie. if we put these other two criteria in the commissioner moran is suggesting in his
comments, what would be the time line of rechanging the formula? >> they're ready to do. those are not hard changes. there may be consternation where they want the us to project out this we'd have to say we're not going to do that because there's a policy in place with a progress -- projection but it's different and what they have to do in term of rationing. we have a number of wholesale customers anxiously awaiting to see what the p.u.c. does because they all have w.s.a.s which rely
on the picture for the regional supply. they're all awaiting to see what the commission says. >> this is an assessment. this is not an approval of housing pieces and the work is of value for the commission. if you're waiting to get the report. >> technically the changes are easy to make and some people are uncomfortable they don't do anything else but that's the commission's purview is what this says. >> to understand the second aspect of the request, are you saying go funk -- going further
out than the 20-year project? or eight-year increments? >> it's demand and supply options and then to i would assume to say at the 20th year if you were paved with a doug drought, what would a 20-year drought look like. i'm not suggesting to go beyond the 20 years but the severity we see when we do our planning on the eight and a half year basis be reflected in the report. >> the table would be reflective of a 20-year period projection and the last few years may have a different color or something like that to show this is an
information piece. >> commissioner: am i hearing it will be back on the agenda if we delayed it to the next meeting? >> i don't know why we can't get it on the agenda for the next meeting. these are simple changes to make. there may be consternation in the planning department and their attorneys but part of me is like that's not their job. it's your job. >> and we have the discussion of how the potential credit. do you want to go further than what the state law requires and do an eight-year? >> if it turned out the third year is as bad as it gets leave it that way. i'm fine but if the other years show it's worse we have to show
it's the case. the other is the calculation to a rationing level. it says the general level of rationing is 38%. >> there's wording on page 18 saying this is what it would be for the customers collectively and may not be a precise number or the pushg may make a -- p.u.c. may make a policy decision to adjust it. >> >> that would be fine. >> clerk: a motion to continue to may 28.
>> commissioner: can we make a motion to move all of them. >> 10 through 13 to the next meeting with the adjustments based on commissioner moran. >> second. >> clerk: who made the motion? >> commissioner paulson. based on the two criteria commissioner moran suggested. >> commissioner: is there any public comment? any further discussion from the commissioners? seeing none, all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> let me make an offer as well. planning may have see qua issues i don't know if it would help to adapt a policy that says and
that level of rationing isn't okay. we are committed to meeting review criteria that allow us to never impose that and that's our intention. i don't know if that's helpful or hurtful but it is it is i'd entertain the policy. >> we'll work with the city attorney on language to that effect. >> and i'd like to weigh in because of the constituency i represent and the v.s.a. process is still underway. i appreciated you saying when we talked about the priority are still there and somehow put language in the resolution that says we have obligations to meet for the sake of the environment and eco systems and fish and
that's the balance we're trying to reach. >> commissioner: we were asked do we have enough water and we should answer that. if we start putting things like that in, everybody can add things. we should just answer what we're asked to do. >> i feel there should be reference to the state mandate and there is but it's not specifically related to why
we're struggle the water supply question. we can look at the language. >> that's why we put three options because we don't know the outcome. let us work with the city attorney and we'll touch basis with you on your issues. >> that brings us up to item 14. >> approving to the memorandum of understanding between the san francisco public utilities commission and local agency formation commission and thunder showers the general manager to extend it a total mou term subject to board of supervisors approval.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the director of the clean power s.f. program for the pour enterprise. i wanted to welcome our new commissioners, maxwell and paulson. i look forward to working with you. have you before you an amendment and center hill mentioned it in the update to provide a one-year extension to the memorandum of understanding between the p.u.c. and local agency formation. the amendment would extend duties to monitor and advise the p.u.c. and the san francisco board of supervisors regarding the progress of the clean power s.f. development and i implementation.
since 2009 p.u.c. and staff have worked pursuant to the terms of the mou. the mou has been amended three times extending the term of the agreement through this fiscal year, 2018-19. and the current amendment whether to provide one year of additional time on the mou at existing funding levels. work will be performed over the next year and work performed over next year will rely on the $200,000 remaining of the initial approved amount from the p.u.c. for 234e -- for the mou and it will extend to 12 years il requires board of supervisors approval. the resolution for your consideration would authorize the general manager to seek board approval of the amendment. with that, i'm take questions you may have.
questions? public comment? >> good afternoon, bryan gobbel. commissioner, nice to see you. thank you for considering this is amendment to extend the mou that's been in place since 2009. and faze reached a mile -- it's reached a milestone in 400,000 customers and hats off to clean power s.f. and everybody getting the program this far. we now look forward to turning our attention to a local build out of renewable energy
projects. extending this mou will allow us to expand capacity and expertise to compliment the work of staff and provide program and project recommendations. we look forward to a local build-out that helps the city meet the climate and electricity and renewable energy goals and advances economic, environmental and social benefits for communities in san francisco. so i look forward to continuing to work with staff and i urge your approval. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. do i hear a motion? so moved. those in favor? opposed? to the motion carries. so madame secretary read the items for cloifd session. -- closed session.
>> clerk: item 17 pursuant existing litigation and item 19 existing specific act and electric item 20 existing litigation for gas and electric and 21, existing litigation, 22, skifth litigation. 23, existing litigation gas and electric, and 24 existing litigation gas and electric. >> commissioner: any public comment on the matters we'll be addressing in closed session? may have a motion on whether to assert? >> i'll move to assert. >> second. >> commissioner: all in favor? opposed? the m
>> the commission has reconvened the report following closed session is there is nothing to report, we just had discussion. may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second? >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> the motion carries. is there any new business to be discussed? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:19 p.m. much.
>> the meeting will come to order. this is the april 19th 2019 meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am centrally fewer, chair of the commission. i am joined by our chief commissioners. the clerk of the commission is victor young. i would like to thank the staff at san francisco government t.v. for arranging today's meeting. unfortunately commissioner hilary ronen is having to step down from our commission. we have appreciated her role in this body and want to thank her for her service. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> please make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and copies of any documents included as part of the testimony should be submitted. >> mr. clerk, please assist commissioner singh on her
apparatus? thank you. one moment, please. thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> item number 2, approval of the minutes from the march 15th 2019 a regular meeting, i would like to note there is one correction needed in that the title of the documents should read minute and not agenda. >> thank you very much. do any commissioners have any changes to the minutes of the march 15th meeting? seeing no changes, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 2, the minutes of the meeting? mr. wright. >> i don't know anything about the minutes of the meeting, but
the two minutes that i do have, i want to make an announcement, and when i get to public comment i'm going to demonstrate how to sink and save $66,000,000.1 building apartment building complexes. i have been stressing for years, but not getting nowhere to explain that when you get a developer, you need a nonprofit developer, and quit getting developers are in it to make money and putting profit over safety. i will demonstrate that you can save $66 million per building, and this technique is pertaining to the inclusionary rule, where you are supposed to include the most honorable people to give housing. that is why everybody voted for them. then after being put into effect , you come up with this loophole that the developer, the construction company can pay the mayor's office on housing
$2 million in order to not include the inclusionary people who the rule was targeted for, and then build another building and performed the same procedure all over again, that's why you have so many people out on the street, and about you setting the affordable housing, you claim it is affordable housing, yet you make the lowest income at $80,000, $70,000 a year, and out of nerve say that is low income housing. i'm real upset with kate hartley she came up here last week, this week and put up a scale and said that this is low income, and very low income, and the truth of the matter is, the people in the very low and low income brackets is not being included in the housing opportunities, it is disgusting, it is not fair, and the new supervisors, i will show you how they are not following the rules of regulations pertaining to mission rock. it has 1,000 apartment buildings
i think 33% is supposed to be for low income bracket and very low income bracket people. i think that comes out to 250 of those apartments is supposed to be for very low and low -- >> thank you, thank you, mr. wright. are there any other members of the public that would like to comment on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> yes. >> motion made by commissioner mar and seconded by commissioner singh. we can take that without objection. the minutes are approved. mr. clerk, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, community choice aggregation activities report. >> thank you very much. we will have a presentation on the clean power s.f. director of the san francisco public utilities commission with updates about enrolment, as well as state legislative updates. go ahead. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm the director of clean power s.f. for the san francisco public utilities commission. i do have a few slides for you
today that will run through in a fairly brief update, it is a pleasure to be with you in this meeting in april. it is a big month, it is earth month. it also happens to be the month that clean power s.f. really and truly goes citywide by completing our enrolment of residential accounts in the city and county. so we are going to cover our enrolment and service status and we will provide, as the chair mentioned, a state legislative update and then we are happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. >> as i just mentioned, starting the beginning of this month, the clean power s.f. program began enrolling about 280,000 customer accounts citywide, mostly residential, a little under 1,000 of those were commercial customers, so what that means is
now -- as of the end of april, about a week and a half from now , the program will have enrolled more than 400,000 customer accounts citywide, which is about 99-point 9% of our potential. the only remaining accounts are some of the largest commercial accounts in the city, which we are going to go back and speak to the second half of this calendar year, and that was an approach we took as a risk mitigation measure. they command a lot of sales, so we want to make sure we have the time to understand their interest in staying with the program. so what that means on the opt out and upgrade statistics that we try to show every time we come here and speak with you, is that the cumulative out rate for the program is now two-point 7%. you might recall, it was about three-point 4% last month. that has come down because we have enrolled a lot of accounts. we're still in the open enrolment period. there are a couple more months
of that, so do expect more opt outs to come through, but we are on the trajectory that we were anticipating, maybe even a little bit better. so the super green upgrade rate is now one point for%. that includes the accounts we have enrolled. that represents three-point 5% of our program annual energy sales, and i wanted to draw that distinction here. because last time i reported to you ever super green enrolment rate was higher, so it has come down because the sheer number of accounts has gone up, but we haven't -- we have a significant number of sales, and that is ultimately what counts when it comes to addressing climate change. i know this is still a relatively small percentage overall, but we are addressing that by improving the carbon footprint of our entire energy purchases. i also wanted to add another stat here, which is it has come down to one point 4%, but ever
super green enrolments have also continued to grow. we added 24% more super green enrolments since we in -- since we started. things are going wrong -- well. this is a voluntary action on the part of our customers. one last thing, how do we compare with our peers? so mce clean energy which has spread is now multicounty, c.c.a., they have been operating since 2010. there upgrade rate is 1.9% the c.c.a. in sonoma is 1%. our goal is 5%. we think that we are setting our target pretty high, and we think that san francisco will deliver, too. so that is my report on
enrolment and i will pause here if you have any questions before he handed over to my colleague. >> i see no one on the roster. >> okay. so i will hand it over to susanne of our external affairs team who will walk you through the update. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners, thank you so much for having me today. i'm on the policy and governors affairs team. we submitted our slides before an important develop it came up and stay policy late last week, the report from the governor's strike team on wildfires and climate change came out, so it is not on the slide, but we wanted to give you a quick update on that and give you a chance to ask any questions you might have. you might remember governor newsom newson convened a strike force on wildfires in january, last friday the strikeforce released its report on
california policy options to reduce the risk of utility caused wildfires, as well as utility financial problems linked to wildfires. the report focuses on the urgent need for wildfire mitigation and suppression, developing a safer and more reliable electricity system and keeping costs affordable for all californians. and importantly, the report notes a catastrophic wildfires are exacerbated by climate change and says it is critical to state's progress in clean energy is not derailed. the reports recommended many recommendations focusing on five key areas for action. the first one is wildfire prevention and response, the second is mitigating climate change their clean energy policies. number 3 is fair allocation of catastrophic wildfire damages. number 4 is a more effective cpuc with the tools needed to manage a changing utility market , a number 5 is holding them accountable and building utility that prioritizes safety. the report mentions c.c.a. most
prominently in section two, which is mitigating climate change through clean energy section, it touches on the impact of c.c.a.s and direct access providers in the evolution of the energy market. the report highlights that c.c.a. his are playing an important role in advancing clean energy in california and it also recommends and state actions including evaluating a resource adequacy backstop via the legislative process, increasing transparency for load serving entities such as c.c.a.s and steak ordination of procurement, increased variability in generation and consumption, and the report also recommends considering a change to the state's condemnation law which holds utilities accountable for wildfires even if they are not explicitly just explicitly at fault. we expect many of these concepts will surface in the legislature in the coming months and we will be engaging on her own and through c.c.a. i can pause here for any questions on the report. >> i see no names on the roster.
>> great. okay. i will go ahead and then talk about our state legislative update at this point starting with ab 56. it is one of the bills we are closely monitoring so far, the sfpuc is opposed to this bill, as is cal c.c.a. other opposition so far come from socal edison, and stakeholders including p.g. & e, semper energy, the american wind energy association and the solar energy industries association all says they can only support only the significant amendments. this to focuses on a concerned that we are seeing quite a victim of -- a bit of an sacramento, that is how to ensure grid reliability with an increasingly decentralized energy system. it did pass the assembly utilities and energy commission, although there was scepticism from legislators. the bill would give the cpuc the ability to tasking existing state agency is a procurement backstop. at the hearing last week for the bill, we focus and how the bill
will be amended to address any stakeholder concerns and should be seen as a starting point for discussions. c.c.a. is providing some ideas for different amendments to make it a little bit more tenable for c.c.a.s. we currently believe that a central buyer is unnecessary, however, we will would be willing to support one who is responsibilities are limited to procuring unmet local resource adequacy capacity. so we will definitely be continuing to engage on this bill and report back to as the session progresses, any questions on ab 56? great. ab 1362 is another bill we wanted to draw your attention to it would not be applicable to clean power s.f. because it applies primarily to c.c.a.s that are in development, but cal c.c.a. is opposing this bill. it would over stern s.p. 790 which was signed into law into 2011 and has the cpuc with adopting a code of conduct to prohibit investor-owned utilities for marketing against c.c.a.s unless funded by
shareholders. so this prevents the iou from using their position and market power to undermine c.c.a. developments. this bill is currently in assembly utilities and it will be heard next week. and s.b. 155 is another bill that cal c.c.a. is opposing. we are also still in the process of reviewing and determining our position. it would allow the cpuc to audit load serving entities like c.c.a.s, the compliance with the renewable portfolio standard requirement, and ensure corrective action when there is no compliance. cal c.c.a. is concerned that the bill would reduce c.c.a.s' flexibility and metonymy and increase procurement costs, and affect programmatic goals. that will be heard as well in the senate next week on the 24 th. any questions about those two bills or anything else. >> any comments? seeing none. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> let's open this up for public comment.
is anyone who like to comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is now closed. there is no action to be taken from the commission on this matter. mr. clerk, please call item number 4. >> item number 4, consideration of approval a proposed budget for 2019, 2020. >> thank you very much. i like to bring up our executive director to present on this item . >> thank you, madame chair. i'm the executive officer, and i'm here today to present the 2019, 2020 budget. every year, the city and county of san francisco is required to fund for the general fund in the amount of $297,342. in addition, we have an m.o.u. with the san francisco public utilities commission, which
funds our work as the oversight authority for clean power s.f. this year, there were no new requests for funding, and there's only a few slight changes, which i will explain. first, though, this is a history , this slide is a history of our work order balance with the sfpuc. in the second column at the bottom, you can see that we spend about $10,000 this year, most of it was for my time working on clean power s.f., and also to pay our clean power s.f. interns a modest stipend, i've been careful not to draw a lot from this fund so we can preserve as much as possible for our work on the local buildout planning for clean power s.f., and as you know it, our previous meeting approved an r.f.q. to retain removable energy experts and i am looking at completing a draft of that r.f.q. also we expect the p.u.c. to approve an extension of the
m.o.u. which expires this fiscal year. sometime in late may, which would be the earliest i am told. this next slide is our general fund balance. our general fund appropriation expenditures and the year in balance for lafco from 2007 onward. we have set aside a reserve of about $45,000, or 15% of the annual budget. the second column, bottom figure shows ever projected here in balance and expenditures. that is going to leave us with about $23,000 to carry over into next year's budget. these are our expenditures to date, and everything is pretty much on budget with one exception, and in the last few months, we have exceeded our budget for legal services and there's a few reasons for that, one is, we have asked our legal council to do more work, two is
the time spent on boarding our new team, and we have worked out a plan to ensure we stay within budget moving forward, and i have to say, i'm enjoying working with her and the rest of the legal team at richards watson. we have proposed slightly higher legal budgets this year only an increase of about $3,000, based on this year's spending. and then our final slide is our proposed budget for fiscal 2019, 2020, a few notes, under the line item that says executive officer services, i have lowered my salary estimate for the coming year, as you know i am an independent contractor. last year we had $156,000 budgeted, based on this year's spending and my time, we have lowered it to 150,000 for the coming year. other line items, lafco memberships are slightly higher this year. travel and training, this is mostly to attend lafco events
and community choice energy conferences. the rest of the line items are pretty cut and dry. the biggest difference, and -- in this proposed budget, because we do have about $50,000 to play with, i'm proposing 25,000 additional dollars to our labor study, this is to help with media outreach on the final report, printing, photography, i hope to establish a website that would be a resource for on-demand workers, and i also like to bring on a part-time research associate to assist me with the labor study, this is to ensure that i can manage my time while working on both the study and clean power s.f. i should let you know that we do have about $450,000 in funding requests. there are currently pending for our labor study with the san francisco foundation and the state legislature, i'm not sure how much of that is going to come through, but keeping my fingers crossed.
so all told, the budget will have about a $26,000 carryover, plus $45,000 in reserves going forward, i would like to think the clerk of the board's office for her help on the budget, and with that, i would urge your approval. i'm happy to answer any questions and she is here as well. >> thank you very much. any questions or comments about the budget? seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on his budget? >> i haven't started talking yet and you started my time. >> reset the? , thank you, mr. clerk. >> you talk about your budget, we would have a lot more money to have in your budget if we wouldn't have to ask for more money, for example, here's 144
-- s.f. viewer, please. this is a hundred and 44 unit apartment building complex that is being built in mountain view. they are charging $56 million to build this unit. when you build apartment building complexes in san francisco, per unit you charged $850,000 per unit, at 144 units of apartment building complexes, that would cost the city $122 million. hundred 44 unit apartment building complex thing built at $56 million, you save $66 million per building by having a developer build a department built -- apartment building complex at hundred 44 units for $56 million. now, avenue some says
500 million is going to be directed towards helping homeless people, okay, and by the same response, the economic council wants to spend 12.7 million to house all the homeless people that is located in san francisco bay area. is that clear? and here is the mountain view building where it only costs $56 million for this building. and this just flows. san mateo it's building 68 unit building for $57 million, so if you use this technique, you will be saving millions of dollars, and all the people that is homeless out on the street can have their own apartments instead of going in and out of navigation centers. you keep doing the same thing over and over, year after year, administration after administration, and turn around and wonder why you have so many people on the streets. it is not fair. >> thank you, mr. right. are there any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is now closed.
can we please have a motion to approve the budget, please? so moved by commissioner singh, seconded by commissioner mar. can we take that without objection? thank you very much. please call item number 5. >> item number 5, update on the request for proposals for a survey of on-demand workers workers in san francisco. >> madam chair, thank you. did i -- can i just make a statement -- >> yes, please. >> i wanted to highlight a conflict of interest that i have with this item, and due to my prior employment with the jobs of justice, and they are listed as the source of income on my latest form 700 filing, so jobs of justice along with a number of other entities submitted a proposal in response to the r.f.p. to the labor mobility
survey, and so for those reasons i request to be excused for this item. >> thank you very much. is there a motion to excuse commissioner mar we. >> motion made by commissioner singh, seconded by commissioner fewer, we can take that without objection. commissioner mar is excuse for this item. mr. goebel, please continue. >> thank you, madam chair. commissioners, i'm very excited to reports that we have chosen it winning bidder for our survey of on-demand workers in san francisco, and i have sent each of you and your staff a copy of the proposal. first little background of how we arrived to today. we originally issued a request for proposals in january, and extended the deadline to the end of march. i did outreach to a number of organizations who have experience in this area, and though i hoped we would ultimately get multiple proposals, in the end we
received only one, but it was a strong one that exceeded expectations. because we only received the one proposal, i served as a sole r.f.p. evaluator, and examined it based on its merits on the criteria outlined in the r.f.p. it scored high in the proposal and the interview evaluations, and last week i announced we had -- we tend to wear the contract to a group of economic economic researchers he will form a unique partnership with community organizers, the survey will be designed by on-demand workers and themselves. so the partners, i will mention them briefly. chris spinner who is the fact you do director at santa cruz, he is going to serve as the principal investigator and the person responsible for coordinating the project with me , steve mckay is an associate professor of sociology at santa cruz. he will play a key role in
developing the survey and the methodology. mr. fang, executive director of jobs with justice san francisco will serve as the partner with engaging local community organizations, and especially reaching racially diverse and vulnerable workforce populations , aaron johannsson is the research director of the jobs with justice education fund , she will collect information on prior surveys and serve as an overall advisor and coordinator. last but not least, hayes with and matt schlesinger are the cofounders of the driver seat cooperative. this is an app that can be used to collect data from on-demand workers, anticipate being able to deploy this -- for hundreds of on-demand workers, which will to collect data and inform the survey. anticipate this data will be very helpful in terms of transportation data to the transportation authority and the sfmta. every one of these partners
brings extensive experience on labor issues to the table, they all have impressive resumes, resume is, the academic researchers have long histories doing research on issues related to the restructuring of work, and the economic security, jobs are justice san francisco, as you know is a diverse coalition of more than 30 community faith-based student or labor organizations. they are going to take the lead on recruiting workers for the survey. that a partners also have experience conducting surveys in multiple languages. they will begin by recruiting workers for a series of focus groups, in which they will develop the questions and the methodology. the researchers plan to use multiple methods, data sources to enhance their findings. there's also this other thing which i'm really excited about is they are in discussions about a potential partnership on the survey with the u.c. berkeley labor sensor. the researchers there are
already stuck it -- studying the gig economy, and that partnership could potentially provide aggregate anonymous data from on-demand workers in san francisco by examining tax returns over many years for a partnership with the franchise tax board. i also want to add that the partners experience with ensuring the confidentiality of those who participate in the survey. they have a plan to keep all of this information storage and an encrypted format. it is an impressive proposal, and i'm thrilled to be able to work with every one of those partners to come up with a series of policy recommendations to address the problems and the issues that we find in the survey, i am now entering into contract negotiations with professor benner and the rest of the team. i hope to bring a contract to you for approval at our may 17 th meeting. there is no action required on this item today, but i am very excited to move forward.
>> it sounds very exciting. commissioner singh? >> sorry, there we go. i want to echo commissioner fewer and a incredibly excited about this. i wanted to resurface something that i think could come up or i had brought up many meetings ago at this point, but i would be interested to know if some of the data collection is going to involve, or is going to be able to capture tipping practices, so i brought that up last time, but since it has come up, there has been a lot more controversy around companies such as door dash, and insta cart to have refused -- insta card says they have changed their policy, but door dash, for example, which is used heavily in san francisco, has refused to change the policy where they are basically deducting tips out of the wages they would pay their delivery drivers otherwise. still very interested if the study is going to try and capture that data, or is it possible to do so? >> thank you.
i can tell you, most definitely, that that will be one of the issues the researchers look into i have been in contact with supervisor peskin's office he has been looking into this issue i know the bureau of labor enforcement standards for the city is also conducting an investigation of door dash. i have been in touch with them as well. yes, tipping policies of companies will most definitely be one of the issues we look at. >> thank you so much, this is really exciting, i think. i thank you are right. this is a very impressive proposal, and i like the fact that it's -- that they will be doing the on the ground work while they are working academically. what a wonderful combination. i look forward to our contract next month and thank you for your work on this. no comments, questions? great, let's open this effort public comment. any members of the public wish to comment on this item?
mr. wright. >> yes, you were talking about employees. i will ask you to step back on focus on the employees, that's well over 1,000 that's been working five, ten, 15, 25 years for the city and county of san francisco and you call them exempt employees, this is a discriminatory practice and tricking devices on the grounds that exempt employees that's working and labouring for the city do not get medical insurance, don't get annuity plans, and don't get no retirement plans, but yet you work them and have them not being able to know what they are going to wake up to you, and whether their job is going to be terminated, it is not fair, then you turn around and you have any executive director that works for the department of public health for well over 20 years and got annuity, retirement plan , and health plan, and she has been embezzling $100,000 a
year for seven years straight. do stopper from working, but you let her keep her retirement plan it is not fair. as far as taxes, you talk about dealing with the tax board, i have demonstrated that you have given twitter -- he used to be five, but now it is nine high-tech companies, multi- trillions, and billions of dollars of tax free money, talking about you giving them a break, when i ask you, why is twitter getting multi- trillions and billions of dollars of tax-free money? and then you tell me, you're giving them a break. they don't need a god damn break the people who need a break or the people who are speaking up for the homeless on the street with people with mental and physical disabilities, amputees, people in wheelchairs, and our veterans, i need a break my god damn self. give me militant -- multimillions of dollars of tax-free money and watch what i do with it. it is not fair. you are running a racket. that is called money-laundering,
tax evasion and fraud. where are you keeping that money ? >> thank you. any other public comments? seeing then, public comment is closed. there is no action that needs to be taken at this time. can you please call eight -- last month a launched a new speaker series. what i hope to do by having this speaker series is to bring expert for great conversation on the topics that they are taking on. i hope that these sessions can be a resource not only for myself and for interns, but staff from all supervisors offices and the office of the mayor. our first speaker last month was mary collins of the american jobs project. she gave a pop presentation on
the potential for offshore wind energy in california and how california could be a leader in that area. we had staff, five staffers from the sfpuc, we have staff from the port of san francisco, as well as the mayor's office. our speaker next week helped write a new book called designing climate solutions, which is a guidebook for policymakers, and we now host to these these meetings monthly in the conference rooms, and i hope sometime we will all have time to attend. my one other note is that for the may 17th meeting, i anticipate it will be a longer meeting, and we are looking at changing time from 11:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. that day. i believe chair fewer there is a conflict in your schedule that day so we're looking at moving the meeting to a different time. that is all i have. >> thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the
public would like to comment on item number 6? >> this is a derivative because you are working on the budget, and i want to explain further to you that that tax-free money that is not being collected, i've already mentioned that that is called tax evasion, money-laundering, bank fraud and conspiracy, you are depriving the low income bracket people of their due process and equal opportunity rights. i have talked about the exempt employees, they are working and can't get full benefits. ronen claims she has experience in employment discrimination law i find it all that nobody stood up for those employees, because, see, what you were doing, having a set of employees during the same type of work, but not getting the same type of benefits and income, medical coverage, and retirement plan, that is a violation of the unequal pay act of title vii of the united states of america code service, the u.s. attorney
generals and the lawyer's edition. 2,000 each series. you can't be benefiting one set of people, one set of income and doing the same work, but don't give them the same type of results. that was is a violation of the unequal pay act, and you should compensate those employees and back them up and give them back pay for what you are shortchanging them on. it is not fair. and about this situation -- s.f. viewer, i mentioned kate hartley she is talking about how she literally put up a scale and said, 80%, which is $63,300, is low income affordable housing. people make it a low $66,300, is not included in the housing opportunity. so you are discriminating against them. you are so deeply involved in you discriminatory packages and you discriminate against people that those same skin color as
you and then you said, 50% is low, very low income, so that is $41,450. >> thank you, mr. wright. thank you mr. wright. any other public comments? public comment is now closed. strickler, please read the next item. >> item seven, public comment, members of the public may address a san francisco local agency formation commission on matters within their jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. >> i wonder -- public comment? mr. wright. >> all picked up all pick up where i left off. i showed you -- >> okay. [indiscernible]. >> i went through this with supervisor walton in his office. he was very impressed, and i
want to show you how the homeless situation is at a point where homeless people don't want to go to navigation centers and shelters because of the hardship , it as a result, they are sleeping -- that's what used to do my god damn self when you had me on the streets. [indiscernible] law enforcement came in contact with approximately 1,139 homeless people using the airport as a bathroom to keep themselves clean, while they are living in transit. all because you have to find housing for the low income people that you claim that you want to help, that you can't pay for, and then when you get enough, you turn your back. it's just like mayor breed. she campaigned and claimed her when she was a kid and her two
brothers and grandmother were taking care of her and she is taking home $900 a month. that is general income under people who are on the street and living on social security, and getting -- getting general assistance for the same income. how would you like it if you were out on the street and you're at a navigation center for 90 days and they kick you in your grandmother out of the navigation center, that is not housing, it is not fair. it is another -- [indiscernible]. >> is it on there? >> there it is. >> thank you, mr. wright. thank you very much. public comment is now closed.
mr. clerk, will you please read item number 8. >> item number 8, future agenda items. >> colleagues, to be have any future -- yes, supervisor mar? >> thank you, thank you chair fewer. i had a question or an idea on, you know, as we are waiting for the p.u.c.'s report on possible new directions we can go, i think in terms of electricity distribution and san francisco, i think we are all eagerly awaiting that, and there will be a lot of attention and discussion about -- on the board of supervisors and in other bodies, i'm wondering if there is some presentations and discussion we can have here at p.g. & e even prior to that report coming up -- at lafco even prior to that report coming out to expand our understanding of lafco and to hear the broader
public about this kind of moment we are in right now, and understand potential options. i don't necessarily have anything specific in mind, but i was just wondering, since it seems like that report and where the discussions and possible actions go from there, is directly related to the role that lafco plays in overseeing clean power s.f. >> go ahead. >> executive officer. commissioner mar, i would be happy to work with you on preparing a presentation for our next meeting.
i know that by our next meeting the report will be out, sorry be happy to work with you and prepare a presentation on that as well as asking the p.u.c. to prepare a presentation as well. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any other future agenda items? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. seeing no speakers, public comment is closed. mr. clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> that completes the agenda. >> thank you very much. this meeting is adjourned. [♪]